"What, run after everyone and introduce themselves?"

An employee of the Memorial International Society, historian Alexei Makarov was detained on June 12, 2017 in Moscow at an anti -corruption action. He tells what was guided by the judge of the Moscow City Court, leaving the decision on a fine in his case.

He went to the Moscow City Court for the detention on June 12, 2017. Actually, all my participation in the events of June 12 was that I drove my graduates away from the riot police and fed them (not riot police!) With a prison pie (she is a Mazurka, a dish traditional in our family, which is preparing for all protests - dough, nuts and raisins). It was what lifted me. Not seeing that in my hands, I was detained as if for the fact that I was handing out leaflets. On August 28, the Tver court, having examined without me, my case, gave me 20 thousand rubles of a fine. Only two months later they deigned to send a sentence. Then I sent an appeal, and the “Russian Post” read it for three months. The Mosgorsud was received only on February 12, 2018, on February 15 they called me and said that I had a court on the 16th.

The judge’s decision itself (to leave a fine and its amount) was made literally for 10 seconds. This was preceded by my explanations in the case, which were essentially, excuse me, turned the judge into a bazaar.

Judge Anna Andreevna Selirerstova (born in 1982), worked in the Pushkin City Court (2013–2014), and now moved to the Moscow City Court.

What did I learn as a result of my 20-minute explanations that the judge turned into a bazaar?

1. That I was fined 200 thousand (OPS, agreed).

2. That the European Convention and the decision of the ECHR is not a decree for us, since in Germany, rallies also disperse.

3. That how could I not hear the calls of the police, if "you shoot everything and put it in YouTube, you can hear it ..."

4. What how were there no mass riots?! Here Navalny was summoned for interrogation to the Investigative Committee on June 12.

5. Well, finally. I asked me to terminate the case, and if not, it is possible to reduce the fine (according to the decision of the Constitutional Court, you can and less a minimum, I have 20 thousand, creep). The judge looked at the place of work - the Memorial Society and says: "And is not the activity of the" Memorial "?!" (Here I disrespect my jaw and answer that there is actually not ...) a curtain.

If we talk about the case file and the decision of the judge of the Tver court (partially I wrote about this here ), then

1) Seliverstova refused the participation of the prosecutor in the case and the call of the police. This is a gross violation of the principle of adversarial process, and the inability to interrogate witnesses - a violation of the right to a fair trial.

2) the place, time and event of an “administrative offense”.

The judge did not pay attention to the fact that the place of detention was indicated incorrectly (Tverskaya, house 17, while I was detained in the green zone opposite the house 8 in Tver Boulevard).

The detention time was recorded as 18:30 (in reality - 17:15). We arrived at the ATS at 17:50, I got inside at 21:10, came out of it at about 0:15. Moreover, in the protocol on the administrative detention, the time 18:30 is called, and in the protocol on the delivery was affixed to 18:10. That is, at first I was delivered, and then detained.

If we talk about the events themselves on June 12, then the decision of the Tver court says that it was an “unauthorized public event”. My attempts to convey to the judge of Seliverstova that the Law on rallies (FZ-54) does not have such a thing, they were unsuccessful ...

If we talk about the fault, that is, first of all, about the intentions of an administrative offense (and in the case it was written without any evidence that I knew about disagreement), then my position was as follows: the following:

1) there is a closed list of responsibilities of the participants in the public event (part 3 and 4 of Article 6 of the Law on rallies), it does not include the obligation to find out whether the event is agreed or not;

2) the organizers (Navalny and Rubanov should know about coordination, but they were detained before I was detained);

3) As you even imagine in this crowd, with a blocked street and so on that I will look for the organizers and ask whether it is agreed ...

4) even if a public event is not agreed, this is not an occasion to disperse it (if there is no real threat to the life and health of citizens);

5) the only thing that I could violate from the list of responsibilities of participants in the public event is not to submit to the requirements of the police ... Then the judge asked: “What, did you have 19.3?”

I also appealed to the fact that the requirements should be legal (and they were not, since I realized my right to freedom of assembly) and, in addition, when detained (paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Law on Police), police must be submitted, called the reason for the appeal and so on (here the judge indignantly said: “What, to run after everyone and introduce themselves?!”), And this was not ...

In general, thanks to Mrs. Judge for gross violations that increase my chances of winning the ECHR, and wait for me, Strasbourg